Thoughts on Life, Love, Politics, Hypocrisy and Coming Out in Mid-Life

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Why Hillary Clinton’s "Trustwortiness" Won’t be Fatal

One new national poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald trump by 12% nationally. That said, I cannot relax for fear that some shoe will drop or that douche bag Julian Assange will try to engineer some "October surprise" to push the election to Russia loving Donald Trump. Even some conservative reporters seem to think that nonetheless, Trump is toast and that Hillary Clinton's lack of "trustworthiness" will not be a fatal flaw that prevents her from being elected on November 8, 2016. Likewise, the latest scandal that Republicans are trying to inflate over the Clinton Foundation is a case of smoke but no fire. Indeed, I suspect many will simply shrug their shoulders and say to themselves that the Republicans are "at it again" in terms of maligning Hillary Clinton. An op-ed in the Washington Post looks at these issue. Here are highlights:

More
than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while
she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies
or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion
indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president. At least 85 of
154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled
with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity
or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of
State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined,
the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more
than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

Let’s get one thing out of the way up front: This is almost
certainly not illegal. For that, Clinton should send bushels of roses to former
Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, his lawyers and their legal defense fund
donors, who won a ruling from the Supreme Court that setting up a meeting is
not an official act under federal bribery statutes.

Would she have had these meetings anyway? In some cases, yes.
Many of the donors were longtime Clinton friends and donors, international
philanthropists and prominent public figures. She also did not seeeverybig donor. But the jumble of public
and private interests and the appearance of conflicts of interest were why the
whole enterprise was dodgy from the start.

This foundation scandal is in the realm in between “perfectly
ethical and legal” behavior and illegal behavior. Call it sleaze or the
appearance of corruption. Chalk it up to the Clinton’s habitual blindness to
impropriety.

In a sense,
there is nothing new here. We already knew the foundation served two purposes —
one altruistic and one entirely selfish. It was a sort of super PAC, a big pot
of money to which friends, favor- and publicity-seekers, do-gooders and
celebrities all could donate. It, in turn, would generate lucrative speaking
engagements for Bill Clinton and later Hillary Clinton, employ cronies like Sid
Blumenthal and pay for lavish travel.

Mostly, it would keep Hillary Clinton
connected to the rich and famous for what everyone knew would be one last
opportunity to win the White House. The latest revelation won’t change many voters’ minds, with the
exception of one category of voters. Some Republicans who planned to vote for
her may either stay home or vote for third or fourth candidates, especially in
states that are not all that competitive. If the disgusted Republican voters
stay home, it will actually harm down-ticketRepublicans, one more irony in the Clinton
wars.

Yes, Clinton will “get away with it,” in the sense that the
foundation antics in all likelihood won’t land her in jail or cost her the
presidency. But it does further diminish her. It makes the public more cynical
and therefore governance that much harder. That means voters are once again the
losers.

Finally, it cannot be said enough:Republicans
would be winning easily against this deeply flawed opponent with virtually any
other candidate but Trump. The sheer stupidity of the Republican primary
electorate’s decision and of the reaction of party leadership, which could have
blocked or dumped him, is more maddening than even Hillary Clinton’s shadiness.

I definitely agree with the author's lament about the stupidity of Republican primary voters. That said, it must be underscored that it was the so-called GOP establishment who invited these knuckle draggers into the party and haughtily approved dog whistle messaging that played to their racism, homophobia and general misogyny. Trump is the natural result of the GOP establishment's self-prostitution to the swamp fever ridden masses of Christofascists and white supremacists.

Translate This Page

Contact Me to Order Title Work

LGBT Legal Services

About Me

Out gay attorney in a committed relationship; formerly married and father of three wonderful children; sometime activist and political/news junkie; survived coming out in mid-life and hope to share my experiences and reflections with others.
In the career/professional realm, I am affiliated with Caplan & Associates PC where I practice in the areas of real estate, estate planning (Wills, Trusts, Advanced Medical Directives, Financial Powers of Attorney, Durable Medical Powers of Attorney); business law and commercial transactions; formation of corporations and limited liability companies and legal services to the gay, lesbian and transgender community, including birth certificate amendment.

Disclaimer on Opinions and Content

This Blog contains content that may be innapropriate for readers under the legal age of 18. IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, PLEASE LEAVE NOW. Thank you

This is an opinion and commentary blog and the opinions and contents of this Blog - including opinions expressed concerning opponents of LGBT equality - are the opinions only of the individual blogger and should not be attributed to any other individuals or to any organization of which the blogger is a past or current member.

Followers

Michael-in-Norfolk disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, operability, or availability of information or material displayed on this site and does not claim credit for any images or articles featured on this site, unless otherwise noted. All visual content is copyrighted to it's respectful owners. Information on this site may contain errors or inaccuracies, and Michael-in-Norfolk does not make warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the site's content. If you own rights to any of the images or articles, and do not wish them to appear on this site, please contact Michael-in-Norfolk via e-mail and they will be promptly removed. Michael-in-Norfolk contains links to other Internet sites. These links are provided solely as a convenience and are not endorsements of any products or services in such sites, and no information or content in such site has been endorsed or approved by this blog.